Completion Report

Project Summary:

The stated objectives for this project were:

In the project brief, the following deliverables were identified:

All of the objectives and the deliverables have been achieved.

Analysis of Resource Usage:

Staff Usage Estimate: 33 days

Staff Usage Actual:  33 days

Staff Usage Variance: 0%

Other Resource Estimate: 0 days

Other Resource Actual: 0 days

Other Resource Variance: 0%

Explanation for variance:

Note: although no variance is shown above, PICCL item #1 increased the scope and budget and was agreed by the project sponsors and validated at WIS.

This increased the resource requirement from 20 days to 33 days.

Extended duration

There was a delay in achieving the original target date of the end of March 2017. This was as a direct consequence of the impact of Risk 1 occurring, which it did. A new date range was agreed by the project team and presented to the Psychiatry department and the project was delivered to this new date. The extension of three months resulted in additional time being spent by the Project Manager.

Additionally, although the original scope was not changed at that point, the project was made aware of Psychiatry having moved a number of their team to an alternate site at 7 George Sq. This necessitated several reviews and consideration of the implementation impact across two offices. PICCL issue #1 raised to cover budget change.

PICCL change #2 was raised in early June following the successful completion of two implementations which met the original project brief. It was approved and contains additional resource, taking it up to 33, and a number of new items to be delivered during June to July.

Analysis of effort

The original estimate for the project was 20 days, and the actual effort from staff in IS Applications has been 33 days.

Scope Changes:

There were no changes to the scope of the project following the approval of the project brief through to the implementation.

However, see PICCL change#2 for details of a new change which were excepted into the project after the implementation.

Key Learning Points:

The project was initiated in late 2016, with a very detailed project brief presented. This led to an approach with the new PM taking an initial role challenging what the sponsor wanted to resolve in which timeframe.  Once agreed, a new simpler project brief was created and approved; the original brief will be used to provide input into the recommendation report that has been created as part of the closure.

Pressures on various teams, all captured in risk 1 were a continuing source of delay, that ultimately contributed to the time extension. However, having said that, all the team worked incredibly well together, forging a genuinely positive, can do attitude that ultimately delivered. If the team are called onto re-form and work on future phases (emerging from the recommendations paper) the one area that would need to be more clearly understood is the time required. I would strongly advise that at the start healthy amounts of contingency time are considered.

This was a reasonably technical project, that frequently relied upon 2 or 3 key individuals to work together in order to complete tasks. This level of detail was unknown to the PM and probably most of the project team when the original timelines were proposed. With time pressures (see above) already highlighted, this was an additional factor in delays often having a significant impact, with such a high degree of co-operation required.

One more point about the delay. The risk was escalated, but management and the project team agreed that in the short term there was very little that could be done. Consequently, the team established a window acceptable to the Psychiatry team and presented it back to the project team. Although this increased pressure, it perhaps also focused the team, as everyone knew that missing this late May slot, meant that we had no further opportunity to deploy until late July/early August.

Kennedy Tower - cabling and switch cabinet - before and after - see attached.

Positive Learning Points:

• Ad-hoc meetings were scheduled for the convenience of the BioQuarter, Network Services and Secure Services staff with the PM acting as the conduit and repository of all project updates
  • these were held face to face and via A/V - all meetings were documented and hosted upon the project site
  • while access to the key project staff was a continuing risk, there was significant support for these meetings from all teams
• Project communications were created and shared across the wider stakeholder community at appropriate times - EG a minimum to Psychiatry until we closed in on the implementation plan
• PM took responsibility for all risks included in the Risk Log, ensuring speed of response across the project team

Recommendations:

• Consider how projects are prioritised with regard to Network Services
• Continue utilising AV facilities to support staff at alternate sites - Do Psychiatry have access to AV at Kennedy Tower or 7 George Sq
• Attempts to view an agreed Psychiatry timeline proved largely unsatisfactory - It may be worth a future project leveraging Ken O'Neil earlier to facilitate and create their own for the duration of a project - Late breaking information around the delivery of new Bio data etc would have had significant impact on the project delivery if we had not managed to implement in late May - None of this was known at the outset - Consider creating a working group who meet every two months to review change; include Cedric from 7GS?

Outstanding issues:

At the time of preparing this report (July 19, 2017), there are no outstanding issues.

Attachment	Size
mvm513_cabinet_before_and_after.jpg	157.19 KB